Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lucariell" data-source="post: 6662973" data-attributes="member: 71156">Ok, so I just want to leave my thoughts on the Ranger, somethings I would like to see changed and some I would like to see sent to the depths of hell.First of, the two-weapon schtick. I can see it as a viable option to a melee focused Ranger character, the same way I see it as a viable option to any martial fighter-esque character who wants to dual-wield.However since the Ranger has this "image" of being good-ish (or atleast it does as far as I know) in both melee and range at the same time, Dual Wielding is seriously...I believe inefficient is the word. Consider this, You are a Ranger, You have a Bow(Or Crossbow/Whatever), A BadDude runs up at you and tries to bite you, Do you...1: DROP the Bow, Draw 2 Light One Handed Weapons to fight back, And when the BadDude is toast, start looking for the bow on the ground (Muddy/Darkness/Kicked Around)?2: DROP the Bow, Draw a 2Handed Weapon to fight back (Seriously, WotC equipped the "Ranged Fighter" in the Starter Set with a Longbow and a Two-Handed Sword), And when the BadDude is a goner, start looking for the bow on the ground (Muddy/Darkness/Kicked Around)?3: HOLD the Bow in your off-hand, Draw a One-Handed Weapon to fight back, so that you don't have to pick up the bow before shooting when the BadDude is dead?4: You could ofcourse run. (just needed to add this as an option.)Sure, while the rules of the game states that all options are equally viable since you could pick up the bow for free and just start shooting, I personally always try to think from the characters perspective and he don't use no rules like that. (Tried a Southern accent, mean't no offence). I realize that this is more of a gripe with the rules in general but it is in the Ranger class I find it more evident.(Can also add that this particular issue goes beyond D&D, almost every PC game I have played where you can be a Ranger-esque character they can dualwield and switch between bows and 2 weps at will, and it seriously hurts my brain everytime I see it. Others may disagree, and thats cool, but this is my personal bane.)Anyways, now that I got that out of my head, lets move on to my second point of ranting, the Spells.While I can see a use of spells for the Ranger Class, I would like it to be in a sub-class (Perhaps Warden?, as been pointed out earlier in the thread) rather than a default position.I really liked the No-Magic Ranger they showed in the Unearthed Arcana Article, and eagerly await my DMs next campaign where I hope to play one.Ok, My second point was a little more concise than the previous, but it got said so there. On to the Third, the Thing.So, I guess it should be no surprise that the design of some classes contains aspects of popular characters from movies/books/games around us. Barbarian is for some based on Conan, although he just as easily could be played as a soldier with severe anger issues. In the Monk we can see aspects of the Eastern Martial arts, Ninjas and now apparently Air/Fire/Earth/Water-Benders (Which I don't really mind, the movie sucks though) and so on. The Ranger has as already been discussed recieved most of its inspiration from Aragorn and Drizzt, 2 Dudes I seriously would like to keep on the friendly side, so hope they don't take offence to where I'm going with this. I feel that if we need to find a "Thing" for the Rangers to call their own, then we need to start looking at another character, I'm talking about Geralt of Rivia. (Or Witcher's in general)Yes, They are also very similar to Fighters with a weird Background (seriously, genetically altered mutants with super-juice)Yes, They still have Magic and Spells.Yes, They could be Rangers as they are now, without any problems. (I actually tried to make a sub-class for it, failed utterly, I'm not a great balancer apparently)But I feel that they have something the Ranger touches on, but never fully grasps.The potential of the Favored Enemy.Now, I have only played D&D since 3.5, so I don't know of features from the earlier editions. But I Liked the 3.5 Favored Enemy, yeah, it was dependent on the DM to actually see any use, but that was the thing.When you faced your enemy, you were the Baddest of Asses, anything you did was easier against them, because you KNEW them, How they worked, How they Hunted, How they Killed and perhaps most important How to kill Them. To me, that was the Rangers THING, not the Bow or the 2-fecking-swords, but the Knowledge of how to seriously frakk something up when they could.In 4th they took it out completely, sure they added the Hunter's Quarry instead, and you can't complain about the 4th ed Ranger, he was a freaking monster.In 5th, they decided to make it purely exploration/out of combat based. Not really a Fan of that idea, but I can see where they are coming from. Personally I would like it to be beefed up, give the Ranger +1d6 dmg whenever he fights his Favored Enemy, Advantage or Expertise on skills against them, knowing how to Decieve and Persuade can be more usefull than Tracking and Percieving when faced with enemies that has them surrounded. I can't rightfully say HOW it should be done (like I said, I suck at balance), all I'm saying is that it could be a Thing that sets the Ranger apart from the others.To sum up, Base Ranger class with focus on Favored Enemy with both in-combat and out-of-combat bonuses. Fighting Style, maybe keep Natural Explorer, 3 or more Skills.Then as sub-classes I can see a Warden with druidic spells, A Beast-Master with a pet(or pets), And something more martial focused, maybe Sharpshooter for Ranged and Raider for Melee?</blockquote>

Verification